[Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to last week’s opinion article “SGA spring elections were embarrassing.”]
Dear Editor,
I would like to commend you for your outstanding perspective on the SGA election and their rules. I thought the article was magnificent.
I transferred to ULM after serving as a SGA President and also serving on the Louisiana Counsel of Student Body President’s; however, when I sat down to speak with the leaders here about my possibility of running for an executive position, I was met with harsh criticism.
Thank you so much for being a voice for me and the other astronomical amount of students who disapprove of how our leaders are obstructing democracy.
Best,
Theo Shaw
Senior
Cebus • May 1, 2012 at 11:33 am
Yeah, like how the POV two weeks prior was a megaphone for the new smoking policy, instead of asking why the old policy (which is 100 times more reasonable) was never implemented or enforced.
Might have been nice to see some hard questions asked, like whether or not the faculty senate or SGA approved the policy in any way, or if one militant anti-smoking faculty member with cigarette smoke allergies spearheaded a policy even less enforceable than the previous one. Was the administration just doing what it wanted with an issue that directly impacts students and which does not require a degree in finance to understand (like the back-to-back referendums)? And isn’t it good to see the hawkeye defending democracy?
In the POV after that, the hawkeye editors sounded like a bunch of little girls on a shopping spree. No one questioned the rationale of hiking fees to build new (unnecessary) structures when we are enduring another round of fiscal cuts. Not to mention the quality of the garbled writing.
And in the latest POV the hawkeye editors are giving themselves a high-five not doing what Mr. Shaw has found the time to congratulate them on.
Here’s to hoping for a better Fall semester.